Post by jason on Jul 24, 2019 1:34:21 GMT

I just got kill team in the mail, am reading over it... going to play a few games of it and compare. There are already a few things that I like about the rules as I read them, but can see were the simplification of Grimdark can be nice also.

Post by jason on Jul 28, 2019 2:12:37 GMT

Just played part of a game of kill team with my son [15]. He was tired, but the rules might be a bit much for his attention span, but he was able to keep up with GF:F rules. The alternating activations (without the separate movement rounds and melee preventing shooting from/at the melee) seems to work easier for him then the phases that Firefight uses. However there is a few things that I personally like from Killteam that isn't in GF:F - tactics and command points and some of the teams seem to be more differentiated then what comes out of GF:F. The 3 rolls to determine if a wound happens is a bit more complicated (mostly with the Strength vs toughness lookup step in the middle). I also really liked the fact that Melee 'blocks' ranged attacks, melee felt like it actually had a purpose at times (IE charging into melee against multiple of his units that were all close together from out of LOS and taking them all out of the shooting phase).

After I get a chance to play a few more games of both, I will come back an try to give a pros/cons report between the two (obviously from my personal point of view).

Post by jason on Jul 28, 2019 3:22:08 GMT

oh and at first pass, I would say about 250 points in firefight is roughly a 100 point killteam (I took the 100 point kill teams I build and created the closest team in GF:F to them by model count/etc for TAO, Machine Cult, HDF, and battle brothers and with the exception of TAO's laser spotter thing [which pushed TAO over 400 points in GF:F for the 100 point kill team I have - 7 units with them], they all came out fairly close to 250 points in GF:F - the only thing that was missing is that I wasn't using 'hero' units to do that as they have extra wounds, however that has some impact on morale rolls).

Post by jason on Jul 28, 2019 20:02:04 GMT

Many missions have a variable turn length meaning you can plan your actions based on things being done round 4

Team builds

Lists of units, still has some ‘groups’, no limitations on choices, other then points

Limited numbers of ‘upgraded’ units, so for example you can’t pack special weapons on all of your units.

Player Influence

Movement/attacks

Movement/attack & Tactics (special actions that cost points that you have a limited amount that accumulate every round)

Victory Condition

Final round points controlled

Most missions have multiple ways to gain victory points and point control is normally calculated every round

Final wound on unit

Roll for stun or deadStunned – loose 1-2 actions (depending on if acted this round) & another wound is automatically dead

Roll for dead or flesh woundflesh wound – 1 point penalty to most actions, including future wound roles

Turns

Pure alternation

Phases separating out movement, Psychic, ranged, & melee

Weapons

Typically only vary based on attacks, & AP and some have a special on hit

More variations/labels/etc. The biggest noticeable differences are how some interact with movement & melee combat, and rapid fire weapons which get 2x shots at 50% range (which seems to be almost all the weapons that feel week to me in GF:F – they get 2x shots at 50% range in Killteam)

Ambush/Scout

I haven’t seen any abilities that come across as ambush/scout, however there appears to be a reserves rule, but that is any unit and arrival from edges, not the same as ambush. I think this is in an expansion, not the core rules.

Scouting/field effects

A pre-game bluff/guess your opponents thoughts and random field effects

Faction DifferencesThis will be focusing on a few factions based on the ones I have played [against] in GF:F and/or built armies for for Kill Team (haven’t played enough kill team yet). I going to limit my comments based on what looks like the ‘iconic’ abilities of a faction as that is what covers the what makes the faction feel like the faction.

Alien HivesThis one is based on a faction that one of my son’s friends wants to play, I have mostly look these, not played yet. One of the bigger things is Synapse which is a leadership thing were some units give the weaker units a leadership buff when in range, which doesn’t appear to exist and the related Instinctive Behavior. The combination makes the weaker units reliant on a ‘Leader’ type unit to be near by to be at best performance. Given that (at least how I have seen them played on battle reports), they are a very melee focused faction, which given my prior comments about ranged vs melee (the lack of melee lock down removing ranged ability), there seems to be some impact there (I haven’t played this, so I am not 100% how this plays out).

Battle BrothersThis one is one I picked up models for, haven’t had a chance to play it. These are probably the most similar as they seem to have the least ‘what make this faction different bits to them.

Human Defense ForceAgain, this faction is fairly vanilla, so not much that stands out, other then the commander ability. In Killteam, the commander ability is automatic, however doesn’t automatically get the AoE that is in GF:F (however there is a tactic to give that). Given the differences in behavior, I think the GF:F version of commander works as a reasonable substitute.

Machine CultCanticles – Killteam has a list of team wide effects that can be randomly determined or chosen (but not repeated when chosen), GF:F, it is a AoE buff of +1 to hit for both ranged & melee (one that is commonly gives what would be stealth in GF:F). The other thing is that in Killteam, units (at least the ones in the book I have) all have an invulnerability save, which it looks like was done as regen on a few units in GF:F or dropped all together (which might be reasonable given the can always save on 6 – Kill team if AP pushes the save past 6, you get no save normally).

TAODrones – are always separate units in Killteam, never upgrades to units (other then the Support Turret which is effectively an upgrade, but it gets destroyed if the upgraded figure moves more then 2” from it)Spotting Laser – they behave meaningfully different and are ‘free’ on the relevant units instead of being quite expensive.For the greater good – non-charged units can over-watch (shoot at units charging into melee) if they are close to a charged unit (basically makes it harder to charge at TAO if they are grouped up)Savior protocols – wounds can be diverted onto nearby drones

Post by thewolf on Jul 28, 2019 23:07:07 GMT

Nice write up. One thing to note is I think it would be dead simple to use the Kill Team missions with Firefight. I also think, with a little bit of work, you could easily port over the Stratagems and Command Points rules if you wanted to.

Post by onepageanon on Jul 29, 2019 11:47:48 GMT

Really cool to see a comparison like this, gives you a nice way to see the differences.

Two things to note:- Mission Types & Game Length: There are extra missions and rules about variable game lengths (and more) in the full rulebooks.- Stunned activations: With the new patch you only lose 1 activation when you are stunned (even if you hadn't activated yet during the round).

Post by gufilo on Aug 9, 2019 14:24:04 GMT

jason : Very Nice review for players who have not play the other game.

IMHO, GDF-F is the least complicated rule set availiable to play skrimish games, and KT is just slightly deeper, with optionals layers.

I would say about the game turns: in KT, there is separate phases that are movement (all troups for one player move then the other player does the same), Psychic(pure alternation), ranged(pure alternation), & melee (pure alternation).My play group has choose to play KT with a mouvement phase using pure alternation, as we felt that moving all your troups last is a far too big advantage (running for cover to heavy weapon fire, knowing where target will stay, etc...)

Post by jason on Aug 12, 2019 21:26:33 GMT

Yes, I started doing GF:F on 22x30 after 2-3 games and realizing that the game ended up braking into multiple separate engagements. Scenarios other than "kill" or "last to hold point" seem to have a whole lot more interesting bits to them.

That is definitely the next hurdle for OPR popularity, and one of the reason I like Wyloch's battle reports, is deeper / more tactical scenario play. The basic "seize the objectives" scenario is good for starters but damn does it make you hungry for something a little more complex after a few games

Post by cerkaire on Aug 24, 2019 13:47:31 GMT

I did my first part of Firefight last night. And since I play Killteam a lot before, here are my impressions.First, FF is more fluid than KT. Although we still have old KT reflexes, we quickly let ourselves be dragged by the rhythm of FF and we discover that it is richer than it seems.BUTWe played some of FF on a KT board. And we quickly realized that it was not planned at all!In fact we can play FF ​​on this format, but balancing armies is not planned for this. My friend played Orks and clearly on a small surface it is ultra advantageous because it happens very quickly in close combat and have e lot of units.And clearly a band equipped for shooting, with the density of scenery, can not fully express its potential, nor its advantage to hold the distance.We are now thinking about how to rebalance the thing.

For information we use some rules houses.- 1 points per turn per objectiv hold (so every move is important)- 3 point per objectif on the last turn (As slow units can catch up late on the end)- if you finish a turn you play in second next turn(to balance big bands)- If you charge a unit without having line of sight on it, then you have to roll 2d6 (3d6 for fast) and make the movement obligatorily even if it does not allow to engage the melee. (very fun)

Post by pettigrosso on Aug 24, 2019 21:23:07 GMT

Interesting impressions and evaluatons, Cerkairei have played both version of this games, but in the original format for both of them, so i dont know (i can only imagine) how FF can work on a KT table size, i really hope it can work well because the skirmish games have a lot of positive points for a casual gamer like me and my group.I like very much your charge option (more similar to KT) in the purpose of limitation of close combat lists, honestly a fast unit can run all the field in a couple of turns, and this can be a little too powerful in lot of scenarios.About house ruling i find the last version of FF very balanced, my only add can be use the "wounds" system from KT... i mean: every wound not saved is also a -1 in close combat and to hit, that can balance a little the strongest armour values lists and being a more "narrative" way to play a wounded unit. IMHO of course.